Talk:Siege of Sparta/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 11:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]This article looks in promising shape for GAN. A few drafting points:
- the wording has got itself in an impenetrable tangle at "she would commit suicide rather tif the city fell Cleonymus to Pyrrhus". Usually one can see what a garbled phrase is intended to mean, but this one defeats me.
- The wording was abysmal in that sentence. Hopefully it makes more sense now.
- this is a matter of style and therefore not something on which the GA criteria permit the reviewer to insist, but I think the nine incidences of "however" in the text weaken the prose ("howevers" almost always do), and in all nine cases their removal would be an improvement.
- I have removed all of the 'however's.
- the word "slain" in the lead strikes me as a bit quaint, but again, such a drafting point is no bar to promotion to GA.
- I replaced slain with killed, which sounds a bit more encyclopaedic.
- There are four incidences of "In order to" which would be better trimmed to just "To".
- Done.
- Sources
- Odd mix of locations – "United Kingdom: Routledge", but "Oxford: Oxford University Press", followed by "United Kingdom: Oxford University Press". The town or city is usual, rather than the country, but consistency whichever you choose, please.
- Changed them all to town or city of printing.
- No ISBN for Wallbank?
- Added.
- Odd mix of locations – "United Kingdom: Routledge", but "Oxford: Oxford University Press", followed by "United Kingdom: Oxford University Press". The town or city is usual, rather than the country, but consistency whichever you choose, please.
- Duplicate links: Epirus and Macedon within the lead, and war elephants, Megalopolis and Eurypontid King in the main text.
- I removed the duplicates.
Nothing too difficult to put right there. I'll put the review on hold to give you a week to address the various points. Tim riley talk 11:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I hope that I have adequately addressed all of your concerns. Kyriakos (talk) 15:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- You have. I leave you to consider how to deal with the link in the lead image (and in the popular culture section) to a non-existent page on French WP. Leave the name intact but blitz the link would be my advice.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- B. MoS compliance:
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
I see you have a related article up for GAN, and unless another reviewer gets to it first I hope to look in later in the week. Meanwhile, this article is a worthy promotee to GA. – Tim riley talk 16:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)